Illuminati-R-Us

None of this has anything to do with showing respect for or not showing respect for Ted Kennedy.

The reasons you gave do not make sense. "Oh, yeah, well, people show respect for Dick Cheney" is not an answer. That does not make sense. That is Non Sequitur. Does this suggest you show respect for a dead guy because you are blinded by political ideology? If so, that is pretty pathetic.

And the desperate, attention hungry ramblings of Dragon Star does not make any sense either. Nor does it support your case.

And what's-her-name's comments "I am not sophomoric, YOU are sophomoric" have a cute irony.

Dragon Star wrote:http://computer.howstuffworks.com/troll3.htm

"Troll", "Pile of Shit"
These are just a couple of examples of ad hominem attacks you make because you are too proud to admit when you are wrong and too lazy to learn anything different from what you are told.

Oh come on, Bill.

You and I have both been around the internet for a LONG time and you are certainly a classic example of an Internet Troll.

And this has nothing to do with ad hominem attacks. It is simply a statement of fact, like it or not.

Like I told you in IM, you should learn to EMBRACE your ass-holiness instead of denying it. Your continued denials just make you look silly. It's like you're pointing at the sky proclaiming it to be yellow with purple polka dots and calling everyone stupid for not agreeing with you. It is SO OBVIOUS you're wrong to everyone but you.

Really, open your eyes. Quit acting so stupid.

Take PRIDE in one of the few things you're actually GOOD at.

This is friendly advice, not an attack of any kind.

Amen.

When it comes to being an asshole, Bill, you are truly TOP NOTCH.

So what is your position? Should we pay respects and honor someone because of their political ideology? Should we ignore the fact that in most cases he would have been tried and convicted of Second Degree Murder?

Facts don't change. Just as the fact of O. J. Simpson's
guilt or innocent does not change based on his jury's
distrust for the LAPD or a deep desire for revenge for
the Rodney King beating, the fact that Kennedy was a
murderer does not change because of your perception of
me as a troll or a goblin or a flying unicorn with
green stripes.

Enzo wrote:Amen.

When it comes to being an asshole, Bill, you are truly TOP NOTCH.

I think that this is ad homimen and evidence of a learning disability, or do you disgaree? If I am wrong, show me where I am wrong. How many times have I stated that personal attacks give no weight to your argument and in fact deminish your credibility and reflects upon you as being thoughtless? You do not want to engage in a discussion, your only interest is to hurt my feelings. Coming from you, these attacks have no punch or even the slightest influence. So, keep giving it your best shot.

And if I am incorrect, show me where I made a mistake. These personal attacks convince me I am correct and you have run out of options and are resulting to personal attacks because nothing is left in your arsenal.

You still need to look up "sophomoric", Enzo.

Enzo wrote:Amen.

When it comes to being an asshole, Bill, you are truly TOP NOTCH.

Taken literally, ass holes, or sphincters, serve a purpose. Without them, the world would be a messy place. But they are dirty things. So this is why 5 year-old children call each other this when they are angry.

If you lack the capacity to be a grown up, Enzo, it is not me whom you should be angry with.

That is right, Bill, assholes serve a purpose. They provide a way for endless waste to come gushing out. That is why the term is so appropriate.


Ad hominem remarks? Gee, really? You think?

Bill_Thompson wrote:So what is your position?

Why does it matter?

Bill_Thompson wrote:Should we pay respects and honor someone because of their political ideology?

No. We should pay respects to someone who died. Most people, but I would not be surprised if this doesn't apply to you, watch a funeral procession go by with respect. Not for the individual who they probably didn't know and never met, but for the being who is now gone. It's part of being "human".

Bill_Thompson wrote:Should we ignore the fact that in most cases he would have been tried and convicted of Second Degree Murder?

No. It no longer matters. He's dead now.

Bill_Thompson wrote:Facts don't change. Just as the fact of O. J. Simpson's
guilt or innocent does not change based on his jury's
distrust for the LAPD or a deep desire for revenge for
the Rodney King beating, the fact that Kennedy was a
murderer does not change because of your perception of
me as a troll or a goblin or a flying unicorn with
green stripes.

Yup, that's right. It just doesn't matter.

Bill_Thompson wrote:

Enzo wrote:Amen.

When it comes to being an asshole, Bill, you are truly TOP NOTCH.

I think that this is ad homimen and evidence of a learning disability, or do you disgaree?

Are you really saying that someone who uses ad homimens has a learning disability? Really? I guess that would explain a lot. ROTFLMAO!

Bill_Thompson wrote:If I am wrong, show me where I am wrong. How many times have I stated that personal attacks give no weight to your argument and in fact deminish your credibility and reflects upon you as being thoughtless? You do not want to engage in a discussion, your only interest is to hurt my feelings. Coming from you, these attacks have no punch or even the slightest influence. So, keep giving it your best shot.

And if I am incorrect, show me where I made a mistake. These personal attacks convince me I am correct and you have run out of options and are resulting to personal attacks because nothing is left in your arsenal.

You still need to look up "sophomoric", Enzo.

And this is exactly why no one pays attention to anything you say.

I think it's time we teach Bill an new logical fallacy - not all fallacious arguments are ad hominem attacks. He is apparently fond of the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle. here. To him, the fact that we might be saddened by Ted Kennedy's passing means that we ignore anything negative about the man. It's simply not true. We can both be saddened by his passing, comment on positive things he did, while also accepting that he was a flawed human (as we all are).

Two other comments:

Should we ignore the fact that in most cases he would have been tried and convicted of Second Degree Murder?

That's simply not true. Back then, it was rare that traffic accidents would result in Second Degree Murder convictions. It's not even all that common now, unless one can prove impairment at the time (something that wasn't possible then). I've worked in the CJ field for 30 years, it's only been lately that traffic related deaths were prosecuted, and even then usually not for Second Degree Murder, but rather for "causing a traffic accident resulting in death".

Secondly:

If you lack the capacity to be a grown up, Enzo, it is not me whom you should be angry with.

.

He doesn't lack the capacity to be a grown up, why I've seen him write checks and vote, and all manner of other grown up type things! However, if you think he's angry with you, once again, you overestimate your importance in his life.

Lance, my sister-in-law was a saint. My Father-in-law was a saint.
I lost them both in the same week. They were taken from us by
cancer. And then I see a shrine you post online to Edward Kennedy.
What the hell is wrong with you? I have more respect for an
underwear stain from a homeless man suffering from a bad case
of anal seepage than I do for you.

I know you are duped into thinking Kennedy actually did something
apart from keeping a seat in the Senate from being occupied by
someone who is qualified to be there. But you think this way
because you lack the courage and the capacity to think for
yourself.

Okay, so it must be delusional.

Bill,

I strongly advise you seek the help of a medical professional.

I'm just sayin'.

Edward Kennedy was a criminal. His only raise to power was due to there being too many short sighted shallow liberals who are blinded by their own ideology.

Lance wrote:Okay, so it must be delusional.

Bill,

I strongly advise you seek the help of a medical professional.

I'm just sayin'.

Since you can't read very well, that comment is probably a resonse to several neurons misfiring.

Someone should get medical help for thinking their father-in-law was a great man? Glad your comment will stay for the online world to see how feeble minded you are.

Let's put this in perspective.

O.J. Simpson is a better man that "Ted-Bundy Kennedy" was.

O.J. Simpson killed someone in a blind jealous rage that was built up over decades.

Ted Kennedy killed because he was a drunk irresponsible and careless.

He was the kind of man who would shoot his own kid in the face with a rife out of carelessness.

Now, stop looking at the humping dog and think. O.J. Simpson lost control. Kennedy never could control anything including himself.

God's Witness wrote:I think it's time we teach Bill an new logical fallacy - not all fallacious arguments are ad hominem attacks. He is apparently fond of the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle. here. To him, the fact that we might be saddened by Ted Kennedy's passing means that we ignore anything negative about the man. It's simply not true. We can both be saddened by his passing, comment on positive things he did, while also accepting that he was a flawed human (as we all are).

Two other comments:

Should we ignore the fact that in most cases he would have been tried and convicted of Second Degree Murder?

That's simply not true. Back then, it was rare that traffic accidents would result in Second Degree Murder convictions. It's not even all that common now, unless one can prove impairment at the time (something that wasn't possible then). I've worked in the CJ field for 30 years, it's only been lately that traffic related deaths were prosecuted, and even then usually not for Second Degree Murder, but rather for "causing a traffic accident resulting in death".

"Back then blah blah blah "
not being convicted because of the laws at that time has not impact on guilt. I am talking about personal guilt and not some legal definition where the court lets you go and you are suppost to think the person is pure as freshly fallen snow.

Your political ideology blinds you and you seem to be looking for a reason to think well of the man. That is my opinion.

A different time... a different place... so what? There are places in mainland china where you can kill a man for stealing your chicken. In Brazil, the law tends to look the other way if you kill a man who had sex with our wife. The law also tends to look the other way for killing a gay man too because of the AIDS scare. So what? The question of charcter still comes into play.

"back then... blah blah blah" yeah, in the old south you could beat your slave for disobaying or being lazy. So the fuck what?

I know, being drunk and driving was culturally ok at one time. Well, fuck that. That is no excuse.

If anything, you are agreeing with me. You are saying "he was free and not convicted because the laws were different then". Uh, ok, sure. They didn't have the good sense to flush shit at that time and place.

Oh, Bill, your "stupid" is showing again. You need to pay attention to that.

We keep telling you but you just don't seem to get it. You must be "slow" or something.

Lance wrote:Oh, Bill, your "stupid" is showing again. You need to pay attention to that.

We keep telling you but you just don't seem to get it. You must be "slow" or something.

Explain.

Where is the fault in my argument?

Are you are saying that it is ok that Edward Kennedy killed people when he was drunk and careless because lots of people were drunk and careless at that time?

Civility, Lance, is a word you were never taught when
you were growing up.

Retorts like "you're stupid" and "fuck you" are not
valid arguments. It just shows your lack of a
proper education and a lack of character and a lack
of civility.

Here is a news flash. Your GED does not level the
playing field.

ROTFLMAO!

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony

Yet again, Bill, I am reminded that despite the ability to make and contribute to decent conversations, you choose not to. Instead, you treat everyone here with the utmost contempt, and we, predictably, treat you with similar contempt. With each diatribe that you post, you reinforce the notion that you draw satisfaction from the abuse, and you'd do just about anything to get it.

Very well said.

Read this interesting account of his life and downfall:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34245369/ns ... eattle_wa/

Maurice Clemmons was violent, a pervert and a murder who thought that the world was full of baby eating zombies. He was known for rambling on incoherently about nonsense. But he seemed to have a lot of family support.

Does he remind you of any previous New England Democratic senators?

Under the right circumstances and family support, Lance would be posting an online shrine in his honor.

Bill_Thompson wrote:Under the right circumstances and family support, Lance would be posting an online shrine in his honor.

How is it you don't understand comments like this just make you look foolish?

Were you dropped on your head as a child?

Bill_Thompson wrote:He was known for rambling on incoherently about nonsense.

That reminds me entirely of someone else